Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

On Jan 21, 7:33*am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:

but by
comparison to other sorts of projects relatively little is being spent on
this ultimate solution to the energy crisis.

Where's the energy crisis and why and how is it an energy crisis?

MG

Jonathan

If you want humanity to care, NASA needs to bring everyone
along for the ride. Not just six or so. A manned mission to Mars
only benefits Lockheed et all. Rovers benefit the public.

I disagree. If you want people to again become interested
in space exploration and support further investment in NASA,
they need to see humans playing golf on Mars.

You can send rover after rover to Mars and Americans not only
won't care, they'll likley complain about the cost.

But put an man on Mars, and those Americans will suddenly
imagine _themselves_ on Mars.

What's important is not the science, (which most won't care about
anyway) it's the exciting, epic story of space travel that drives the
imagination.

Also, ground based rovers are boring as **** as the fact is that
the surface of Mars is boring as ****.

NASA needs to send a flying blimp/ballon rover that can show
constantly changing images of the entire planet, instead of a
stationary shot of a boring as **** rock.

On 1/20/2011 4:12 PM, David Johnston wrote:

Yes, considering how amazingly solvent the American government is at
the moment, there's no doubt they'll be stepping up space exploration
as soon as the Republicans get in.

Hey, we're solvent!
Our economy is dissolving a bit more every day. ;-)

Pat

On 1/20/2011 5:01 PM, Derek Lyons wrote:

That still covers a _lot_ of square miles of territory.

99.99% of which is absolutely boring and of little exploratory
interest.

"99.99% absolutely boring" sounds like a good description of Mars or the
Moon themselves.
I was going to write my movie script for "Paula Abdul On Mars" with her
and "FU Gimp Chimp" running all over the place, but now realize it needs
something deep and profound...like dealing with the ramifications of the
insights an artist could achieve in such barren and lifeless
surroundings...it's time for "Georgia O'Keeffe Of Mars"!*
Though it may never hit the profit margins of the first concept, it is
bound to be a big art house favorite, and have thousands of fans once
sold to Ovation TV for around $100,000.

* One night, as she was laying around in the desert near to starving to
death from the failure to sell any of her paintings, Georgia looks up
into the sky and sees Mars...in some strange way she is physically drawn
up to the planet, and begins an amazing series of adventures with the
battling art schools of that world...you think Salvador Dali looked
weird, picture him as giant mustached lizard with eight arms on him
helping her fight "The Cubists Of Spainium".

Pat

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" wrote:

Human beings with suits -- and we know how to make such suits
-- can do all of these things that are terribly difficult for machines
quite easily, already.

Actually, we don't quite know how to make Mars suits. The problem is
the atmosphere is too thick for the evaporative cooling system used on
orbit, but too think for conductive cooling (air over coils) like is
used on Earth. Nor has anyone actually looked seriously at what it
would take to ensure the joints wouldn't be significantly worn by
Martian dust. Etc... etc...

There's probably no showstoppers, but there is a whole host of known
unknowns.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Howard Brazee wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:16:17 -0800 (PST), Ilya2 wrote:

Yes, it is "hogwash" in the sense that Apollo 13 did not stop the
program or even came close to stopping it, but the answer to your
question -- because it was Cold War. Demonstrating US technological
superiority over USSR was a specific, identifiable goal. No such goal
exists today.

Actually such a goal *does* exist today - for countries such as China
and India.

Except their goal is "proving we are a Real Spacefaring Nation by
doing what Real Spacefaring Nations have done in the past".

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Fred J. McCall wrote:

" wrote:


the really good science flights were the ones cancelled. 18,19, and
20.


Oh, the "really good science flights", hey?

Not only that - but it was actually (IIRC) 15, 17, and 20 that got
cancelled.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

wrote in message
...
Not now, but in 20 years? Very likely. The meek (such as yourself) can
have
the earth. The rest of us are going to the stars. Count on it

So how long will it take for manned operations? and even mars isnt a
star

We can have a robust robotic program now, while prepping for later
manned operations to mars and beyond.

For humans to mars a nuke engine would really help cutting travel time
dramatically!

If you insist on manned, then that means near nothing for the
foresable future..Heck NASA cant even run the JWST, so how will they
run a mars program?

Why do you think NASA's doing technology development? If Franklin Chang-Diaz
is right, and VASMIR works, travel time to Mars gets cut down to weeks
instead of months. That means more time on the surface, more science
on-planet, you get the idea. The less time to get to and from the target
means less radiation exposure, fewer of the biomedical effects (muscle and
bone issues), etc. He's been quoted on CNN as saying that if VASMIR works as
he expects, travel time can be cut down to 39 days. Popular Science was more
realistic: 3-6 weeks. It sure beats 9 months there and 9 more back. You may
now go back to your luddite cave.

wrote in message
...
better to do something affordable that explores, might have some
scientific payoff, doesnt risk human life, remember the chilling after
effects of apollo 13?

If people aren't going, what's to explore? And no, I DON'T remember
said "chilling".


the near disaster of a dead crew, is the root cause of the cancelation
of the final lanings.

heck the vehicles were all built, launch teams seasoned and ready to
go.

management feared losing a crew, and decided they didnt want to end
the lunar program by a lost crew.

thus flight certified vehicles were left outdoors to rot in salt air:
( and one flight certified LM hangs above the gift shop in the saturn
center.

How sad is that???????

VBS (Very Bovine Scatology)! Apollo 20 was cancelled so far early that only
the Saturn was built-and it launched Skylab. Apollos 18 and 19 were
cancelled by Tricky Dick to free up funds for other projects-and there was
something called the Vietnam War going on-or did you forget that? Shuttle
was approved at the same time 18 and 19 were canned, so I'll bet that's
where the initial funding for Shuttle came from.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

On Jan 20, 11:32 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ilya2 wrote:
On Jan 20, 2:26 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ilya2 wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:54 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
better to do something affordable that explores, might have
some
scientific payoff, doesnt risk human life, remember the
chilling after
effects of apollo 13?

If people aren't going, what's to explore? And no, I DON'T
remember
said "chilling".

the near disaster of a dead crew, is the root cause of the
cancelation
of the final lanings.

What utter hogwash! Explain, then, why there were another five
flights over the next two and a half years?

Yes, it is "hogwash" in the sense that Apollo 13 did not stop the
program or even came close to stopping it, but the answer to your
question -- because it was Cold War. Demonstrating US technological
superiority over USSR was a specific, identifiable goal. No such
goal
exists today.

We'd already done that as of Apollo 11. No flights after that were
necessary to "demonstrate US technological superiority over USSR".

Doing it only once would have looked like a stunt or a fluke. Doing it
six or seven times removed all doubt.

Utter self-justifying poppycock.



Apollo was never about science. It was about Cold War. There is a
reason of 12 men who walked on the Moon only one was a professional
scientist, and the rest muilitary pilots.

Of the twelve men who actually went to the Moon, two were non-military
(including the first, Neil Armstrong). They were largely military
test pilots because it was a dangerous flight program.

However, your way of viewing things tells us much about the RUSSIAN
space program's outlook.


Fred proves his stupidity once again


Well, one of us does, anyway. I'll show which of us that is, below.


Niel Armstrong was military pilot


WAS is the operative word. He was out of the Navy before he became a
NASA employee. He was a NASA civilian employee before he was selected
as an astronaut. The fact that he was EX-military is rather
irrelevant.


Before becoming an astronaut, Armstrong was in the United States Navy
and saw action in the Korean War. After the war, he served as a test
pilot at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) High-
Speed Flight Station, now known as the Dryden Flight Research Center,
where he flew over 900 flights in a variety of aircraft. As a research
pilot, Armstrong served as project pilot on the F-100 Super Sabre A
and C aircraft, F-101 Voodoo, and the Lockheed F-104A Starfighter. He
also flew the Bell X-1B, Bell X-5, North American X-15, F-105
Thunderchief, F-106 Delta Dart, B-47 Stratojet, KC-135 Stratotanker
and Paresev.


All very nice, but was Neil Armstrong in the US military WHEN HE
BECAME AN ASTRONAUT. Yes or no?

Let me help you out. From Armstrong's official NASA biography:

"After mustering out of the Navy in 1952, Armstrong joined the
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). His first
assignment was at the NACA's Lewis Research Center, near Cleveland,
Ohio. Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory (later NASA's Lewis Research
Center, Cleveland, Ohio, and today the Glenn Research Center) in 1955.
For the next seventeen years, he was an engineer, test pilot,
astronaut, and administrator for the NACA and its successor agency,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)."

"In the mid-1950s Armstrong transferred to NASA's Flight Research
Center, Edwards, California, where he became a research pilot NACA's
High-Speed Flight Station (today, NASA's Dryden Flight Research
Center) at Edwards Air Force Base in California as an aeronautical
research scientist and then as a pilot on many pioneering high-speed
aircraft, including the well-known, 4,000-mph X-15. He flew over 200
different models of aircraft, including jets, rockets, helicopters,
and gliders. While there he also pursued graduate studies, and
received a master of science degree in aerospace engineering from the
University of Southern California."

"Armstrong transferred to astronaut status in 1962, one of nine NASA
astronauts in the second class to be chosen. He moved to El Lago,
Texas, near Houston's Manned Spacecraft Center, to begin his
astronaut training. There he underwent four years of intensive
training for the Apollo program to land an American on the Moon before
the end of the decade."

Now, let me see. He left the Navy in 1952. He became an astronaut in
1962...

--
And was an astronaut before that: having flown the X-15, Neil was certainly
eligible to receive Astronaut Wings.